We are seeing a surge in Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks. BEC attacks are not new or uncommon, but this wave has caught our attention because of its scale.
Many affected companies have been contacting us since June, and all the attacks share several key patterns.
This article explains how the attackers behind this BEC campaign operate and whether it is possible to mitigate the attack.
A little digression for those who have never heard of Business Email Compromise attacks.
A BEC attack starts with compromising a corporate email: attackers infiltrate the email accounts of top management, finance department employees or others along the invoice approval chain.
After examining the email correspondence, infiltrators proceed to impersonate the owner of a compromised account. A CEO’s email opens up the possibility to ask the accounting for an urgent money transfer, likewise, a sales manager’s email provides the opportunity to manipulate a customer’s invoice. Another objective of the attack may be to obtain confidential information: the victims feel comfortable sharing this information because they believe they are talking to a person they trust.
Notably, adversaries sometimes avoid using compromised email accounts to remain undetected. Instead, they will register phishing domains which resemble the original domain and communicate from there.
Business Email Compromise is associated with significant financial and reputational risks, and affects all parties involved in the interaction.
Chapter 1, where we are asked to conduct an investigation
We were approached by companies who had lost out on some payments for their goods and services due to invoice fraud. (We will refer to these companies as victims.)
The victims would communicate with their partners by email. When it was time to issue invoices, the partner company somehow received the wrong details. The message appeared to be genuine and stored the entire correspondence history, but the invoice was incorrect. Eventually, the money would end up in the criminals’ accounts.
Since the invoice was tampered with, it is easy to assume a classic man-in-the-middle attack: the attackers intercepted the messages and modified the content to their benefit. But this raises a lot of questions:
- How were the attackers able to jump into an email conversation they had not been a part of at an arbitrary point in time?
- Why were they able to see the whole message history?
- Was it the work of an insider or was it an external adversary?
We started looking into it.
For reasons of NDAs and sheer consideration, we shall not be giving you all the details of the investigation. But we will try to make our case as complete and comprehensible as possible.
Chapter 2, where we test our initial assumptions
We examined several email threads which had been compromised and saw that as soon as payment transfers came up in dialogue, a third party would get involved. No one took notice because the emails were coming from domains which resembled familiar company names, but were in fact phishing. Our team managed to spot this suspicious activity, but that was the whole purpose of us going through the records. However, your average company employee would not raise any suspicion if they see airbuus.com instead of the conventional airbus.com in the middle of a thread, especially if they see the entire message history tailing below.
Having detected email address spoofing, we suspected that we were dealing with a BEC attack.
We extracted all the phishing domains we could and set out to investigate the possible infrastructure used by the attackers. It turned out that the domains we found had identical DNS records:
1. MX record specifies an email processing server. The domains we detected are hosted on mailhostbox.com. An example of an MX record:
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN MX 100 us2.mx1.mailhostbox.com.
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN MX 100 us2.mx3.mailhostbox.com.
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN MX 100 us2.mx2.mailhostbox.com.
2. NS record indicates which servers a domain is hosted on. The domains we detected are hosted on monovm.com. An example of an NS record:
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN NS monovm.earth.orderbox-dns.com.
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN NS monovm.mercury.orderbox-dns.com.
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN NS monovm.venus.orderbox-dns.com.
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN NS monovm.mars.orderbox-dns.com.
3. TXT record contains an SPF record. An example of a TXT record:
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN TXT "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.mailhostbox.com"
4. SOA record is the initial record for the zone which indicates the location of the master record for the domain, and also contains the email address of the person responsible for the zone. An example of a SOA record:
<phishing_domain>. 5 IN SOA monovm.mars.orderbox-dns.com. <fraud_email>. 2021042001 7200 7200 172800 38400
We’re using <
phishing_domain> to hide the phishing domain, similarly, <
fraud_email> conceals the email address which the attackers used to register the phishing domain.
Chapter 3, where we assess the scale of the campaign
We got curious about the Mailhostbox + MonoVM hosting combination and decided to look for other domains that could be used in the campaign. For this purpose, we used the internal databases, which include all the domains from www.icann.org, and sampled the domains with the necessary MX, NS and TXT records.
The results were impressive: at the time of analysis, we had 47,532 domains similar to those found in the incident. A total of 5,296 email addresses were used to register them, over half of which were registered with popular email services: Gmail.com, Mail.ru, Yahoo.com, ProtonMail.com, Yandex.ru, Outlook.com and Hotmail.com. One particular email address (email@example.com) had 1403 domains registered to it.
It’s difficult to say whether each one of those 50,000 or so domains were created for a BEC attack. However, we suspect that the vast majority of them were intended precisely for that purpose. We speculate this is the case because of their obvious likeness to famous brand domains:
Mass registration of such domains began in the second half of 2020: more than 46,000 domains have been registered since July 2020. The registration rate peaked in the summer of this year as more than 5,000 domains were registered in June alone:
Chapter 4, where we map out what happened
We got two types of domains:
- Some were already familiar, we had come across them in the victims’ correspondence with their partners.
- Others were new and seemed to bear no resemblance to the domains of the victims or the partners. In the context of a BEC attack, we assumed that these domains had been used to compromise the emails. This was confirmed when we found that some of these addresses had been used to deliver phishing emails to the victims.
This is how we established the vector of intrusion.
The attackers approached potential victims with an offer to do business, be it long term or short term contracts. The request was sent via a feedback form on the company’s website or to publicly available group addresses (
firstname.lastname@example.org, etc., where
example.com hides the name of a real organisation). The plan was to have an employee respond to the request from their corporate email account.
After getting a response from an employee, the attackers sent them a phishing email. The body of the email contained a phishing link that supposedly led to a page for downloading some documents: an agreement, a data sheet, a purchase order, etc. The download feature required the employee to enter their password to log into their email, a prior notice of this requirement was given in the actual email, citing confidentiality requirements. After entering the password, of course, no documents were downloaded, but the attackers had the data to access the email account.
The phishing links had a rather specific format:
hxxps://pokajca[.]web[.]app/?x1=<victim_email>. First, the x1 parameter in the URLs passed the value of the phishing recipient's email (we've masked it using
<victim_email>). In order to appear more credible, the message asking for the email password displayed the recipient's email when opening the phishing page. Secondly, the links were created using servlet services like netlify.app, cloudflare.com or similar. Finally, the phishing pages had almost no static content and the content was generated using JS scripts, which made such pages much harder for spam filters to detect.
If the response to the original request came not from an employee’s unique address, but from a publicly available one, the attackers would still use it to send phishing emails. This is confirmed by phishing links from our internal databases containing addresses like email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org in the x1 parameter.
In total, we detected more than 450 phishing links of this kind in our internal databases. They were disguised as Dropbox, Microsoft SharePoint, OneDrive, Adobe PDF Online and other file sharing resources:
Chapter 5, where we detail the geography of the campaign
We extracted user email addresses from all the links we found and matched them with company names.
Our databases contain only a fraction of all phishing links, so we were far from having an exhaustive list of potential victims. But even this data suggests that a wave of attacks is sweeping the globe.
Analysis shows that at least 200 companies from various countries were targeted by this BEC campaign. The potential victims were manufacturers, distributors, retailers and suppliers of various goods and services. In simple terms, this campaign targeted everyone who signs contracts with customers and partners for whatever products or services.
The area of distribution is all continents excluding Antarctica. The majority of potential victims are organisations from Europe, Asia and North America (55.6%, 24.0% and 14.8% respectively):
Chapter 6, where we answer any remaining questions
When we received the first account spoofing reports, we wondered how the attackers managed to enter the dialogue at exactly the right moment and retain the entire correspondence. Having established the infiltration vector, we successfully solved these mysteries.
After a successful phishing incident that gave the attackers access to the victim’s email, the BEC attack evolved along two different paths.
The first option required good coordination:
- The attackers read the victim’s correspondence with their customers and partners.
- After noticing that the conversation was slowly getting to payment issues, the cybercriminals forwarded the required message with the entire story to Phishing address 1 (P1), which is similar to the victim’s address.
- From P1, the criminals would write to the victim’s partner.
- The partner would reply to P1.
- The attackers would then set in motion Phishing address 2 (P2), now similar to the partner’s address. An email that the partner sent to P1 was forwarded to the victim using P2.
- The victim simply responded to P2.
Finally, the cycle was complete: the victim wrote to P2, the partner wrote to P1, and the attackers forwarded their emails to each other. The corporate habit of replying to all further increased the chances of a successful attack. By becoming facilitators of sorts, the attackers could easily substitute the invoice in the forwarded email at the right time.
The second, more advanced, option involved setting up email forwarding rules. More recently, Microsoft wrote about a similar BEC campaign: if the words ‘payment’, ‘invoice’ and the like appeared in the email body, the email was not sent to the address specified by the victims, but rather to the attackers.
The attack then proceeded along the route described above.
The interaction process in both cases looked like this:
BEC attacks are insidious. The only way to protect yourself from the attack described in our article is to ensure that the phishing campaign does not succeed. This is where email spam filters and employee trainings come in handy. There are two other practices which could be very effective for large companies: to register domains that look like the official one so that they do not get registered by the criminals sooner; and to monitor the appearance of domains that look like the official one so that illegitimate ones can be blocked via registrars and hosting providers.
If an email compromise does occur, it will be virtually impossible to prevent a BEC attack from happening: the parties involved in the correspondence are likely to have developed a natural trust for each other, and upon receiving a seemingly normal email (with the whole thread!), the victims would not even think to check the sender’s address. To make matters worse, phishing domains are often a homoglyph, making it difficult for even an experienced security professional to spot the presence of a stranger in the midst.